JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2020 passed in O.S.No.95/2016 (Old O.S.No.199/2011) on the file of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Puttur (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024 passed in R.A.No.1/2021 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Puttur (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').

2. The above suit in O.S.No.95/2016 is filed by the plaintiffs claiming ownership in respect of lands bearing Sy.No. 6/3A4 measuring 0.20 acres, Sy. No. 8/5 measuring 0.46 acres, Sy. No. 6/3A3 measuring 0.32 acres, Sy. No. 8/2 measuring 0.58 acres, Sy. No. 6/3A6 measuring 0.90 acres and Sy. No. 8/4 measuring 0.46 acres are situated in Padnoor Village, Puttur Taluk, D.K.

2.1 The plaintiff No.1 claims to be the owner of the kadim warg land, which is item No.1 and 2 of A schedule property, plaintiff No.2 claims to be the owner of kadim warg land in the item No.3 and 4 of 'A' schedule property and plaintiff No.3 also claims to be the owner of kadim warg land in item No.5 and 6 of 'A' schedule property. It is contended that aforesaid lands are kumki privilege abutting the Government land having 450 links from the plaint 'A' schedule property, adjacent to the plaint B schedule properties. The RTC relating to 'A' schedule property stands in the name of plaintiffs and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The plaintiffs are entitled to enjoy kumki privilege over the entire plaint 'B' schedule property without any obstruction.

2.2. It is their further case that they have filed a suit in O.S.No.163/2007 against one Janardhana Bhat and others. That defendant No.1 who was aware about the said suit in O.S.No. 163/2007. Despite the same defendant No.1 is intending to grant some portions of plaint B schedule property to said Janardhana Bhat. The defendant No.1 has no right over the kumki privilege of the plaintiffs are interfering with the peaceful possession of the kumki privilege of the plaintiffs until the same is withdrawn. Hence, plaintiffs filed the suit.

3. Defendants appeared through Additional Government Pleader filed their written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable under law or on facts of the case. It is contended that defendant No.1 has initiated the proceedings for reservation of the properties bearing Sy.No.9/P2 measuring 19 cents and Sy.No.146/1P2 measuring 40 cents of Padnoor Village, Puttur Taluk, for the purpose of Daivasthan as per the request of the villagers of Padnoor Village. That when the survey was conducted in that it was found proposed properties sought for the reservation of the Daivasthan was beyond the kumki land of the plaintiffs. That the defendant has no intention to grant any portion of kumki properties belonging to said Janardhana Bhat. The subject property is reserved for the Daivasthana which is the absolute property of the State Government. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

"(i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the B schedule property forms kumki to the A schedule property?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit.

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs prove the defendants interference as pleaded in the plaint?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief's as claimed in the plaint?

(v) What order or decree?''

5. One G.P.A. holder of plaintiff No.3 examined herself as PW.1, one additional witness by name Smt.Bharathi has been examined in favour of plaintiffs examined as PW.2 plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have examined themselves as PW.3 and PW.4 and exhibited 36 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36. In order to prove their defence, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1. and exhibited one document marked as Ex.D1. On appreciation of the evidence the Trial Court answered issue Nos.